WH fails to turn over US Att'y documents at deadline Fri, 16th: Dems say Bush playing with fire

[seafan]

Still playing his little games...


March 16, 2007

On Friday, Democrats seethed when the Bush administration missed a deadline to turn over new documents in a congressional investigation into whether the firings were part of a larger effort to politicize the department. More Republicans also publicly questioned Gonzales' independence from Bush and his management of his staff.


Across the country, morale within U.S. attorneys' offices deteriorated, leaving many feeling misled by the Bush administration.
"They feel a strong sense of betrayal," said a former Bush administration Justice Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect his friends in the administration.


Late Friday, the Justice Department said it would turn over on Monday the remaining documents that Congress requested.

But the White House offered no such assurance, and Democrats prepared for a fight if Bush and his lawyers decided to assert executive privilege.


House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said he was prepared to issue subpoenas for documents and testimony from Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser and deputy chief of staff, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and others "to ensure that we are not being stonewalled or slow-walked on this matter."

Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., said the White House was "playing a dangerous game of chicken" that Congress would win.

.....

Looks like John Dean is being heard.

Forcing Executive Compliance with Congressional Information Requests

When Congress plays hardball, it gets the information it wants from the president. The Congressional Reference Service (CRS) has prepared a complete manual on oversight, which they updated recently. In the manual, CRS has laid out all Congress needs to know to crack any stonewall Bush and Cheney may erect to block their oversight efforts.

Lou Fisher, one of the authors of the CRS manual, catalogued a number of the methods available to Congress in his essay: "Congressional Access To Information: Using Legislative Will And Leverage." Drawing on historical examples, Fisher shows that Congress has a host of tools, of various size and shape and depending on the situation, to "extract information from the President."

Together, the manual, the update, and Fisher's excellent article provide an adept guide to everything Congress needs to exercise meaningful oversight as to the Bush Administration - everything, that is except the intestinal fortitude required for winning this staring contest, without blinking.

.....

[wicket]

1. Time to pop more popcorn

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[northofdenali]

10. Would you like a little butter to go with that?

:popcorn::popcorn:

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. my my

Go get me bag now

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Popping enough to share

[wicket]

28. Why thank-you!

:D

:popcorn:

[texpatriot2004]

2. Checkmate nm

[MadMaddie]

3. * will play chicken until he smacks into the will of Congress...

it's coming to a standoff folks....

His day of reckoning is coming..:popcorn:

[blossomstar]

16. I have just been praying that I live long enough to see it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Will Bush take it to the SCOTUS?

Is he relying on them to vote him out of this mess? I hope not.

[seafan]

6. Dean addresses the question re Supreme Court:

From the Dean article cited in the OP:

Before the conflict develops, it might seem helpful to go over the rules of the game -- to appreciate who is on solid ground, who is on shaky ground, and why this is the case. But as it happens, there are no rules!

That is, there is simply no well-established law of the land regarding what Congress can require a president, or a vice president, to provide them. Similarly, there is no well-settled law regarding what the president can, and cannot, withhold from Congress by citing "executive privilege" or other rationales. Thus, while this ground has been traveled many times, it still remains essentially uncharted.

Of course, there are precedents, and even U.S. Supreme Court rulings, in this area. But they have virtually no applicability when the contest involves Congress and the White House. Also, while forests have doubtless been consumed to publish copious learned treatises, essays, articles, and reports on this subject, at bottom, this is a matter not of law, but purely of politics. There is, however, evidence regarding this matter that can be drawn from history.

.....

[Ghost in the Machine]

5. off to the greatest!!

[babylonsister]

7. Whoopee! Thank you, seafan, and I hope the Dems use that manual!

After watching KO, I'm a big fan of John Dean now.

[seafan]

17. I think he's fiercely doing everything he can to lead the way for us in Constitutional Law.

The Watergate fiasco was dirty for our country. The Bush/Cheney regime is catastrophic.

I hope Dean's books Worse than Watergate and Conservatives without Conscience are read by many.


Thank you, babylonsister for keeping up this fight. We are getting to the top of the hill.

Carry on!

[The Doctor.]

8. Can we impeach NOW?

Forgive my English, but this is fucking ridiculous.

A few more months of investigations, and Americans will be screaming for MUCH more than impeachment.

Now really isn't the time, most Americans are still blissfully unaware. Soon enough that will change.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Only when Americans are screaming

will politicos get ahead of the parade

Yuo watch... it's comming

[The Doctor.]

13. Waiting is hard...

but I've been doing it for so long, what's another few months?

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Trust me... it is getting to the point that it feels

like another watergate moment

If they dom't there will be hell to pay....

(As in third party hell to pay, and it will be all shocking... my brother in law is an example of that hell... he is willing to "throw his vote away" with a green candidate... enough come to the same conclusion... adn that candidate will ask... what happened?

[leftchick]

23. can't

"it's off the table" :eyes:

[kestrel91316]

9. Boy, do I have these people all figured out. I predicted this.

They will not comply with ANYTHING this Congress does. They will ignore subpoenas. You just watch.

[The Doctor.]

15. They will try, and the media

will support them.

But even the support of the media will begin to paint the picture of an administration with something to hide.

Ultimately, they will fail.

[merh]

18. They cannot invoke executive privilege over the emails

and communications that utilized the GOP's email services.

Congress needs to subpoena the GOP and consider investigating them for their role in this conspiracy or enterprise.

[seafan]

19. That is an EXCELLENT point, merh! These e-mails on the "shadow GOP servers" are not subject to

executive privilege. Once again, these people circumvented the required governmental computer system of communication --(.gov), in order to pull another fast one on the people.

It follows that any e-mails written on non-governmental servers would be subject to subpoena. The Bushies don't have a prayer on this. (I hope.)


""Mr. Chairman, there are shadow servers in the White House.""


BBWWWAAAAAAHHAHHAHHAAAA.

[merh]

21. And better yet, this admin's policy regarding interception of

and keeping of private emails (distortion of NSA) has resulted in these emails being saved on servers that our own government controls - they may be cleaned by the host server, but they may be archieved in the huge database our gov created to fight the war on terra.

[Mind_your_head]

29. Use "The Patriot Act"

The ONE thing that it was ever intended to do.....catch these thugs in their own crimes. An ironic 'twist' that some of us predicted (and wondered why the thugs who pushed for it, who never thought in 'their wildest dreams' it would ever be turned upon themselves) :stupid: Oh, wait....I guess it was b/c they think/thought that they are above all laws....

WOW - what ego :wow:

[sellitman]

20. These guys keep making Nixon look like an angel.

:puke:

I hope they have similar ends.

[catmandu57]

26. Nixon walked away clean

I want these bastards perp walked and tried for crimes against the American people and the world. They are a thousand times worse than nixon, evil pure unadalturated evil.

[lovuian]

22. Constitutional crisis is coming and upon us

Bush has decimated the CIA with the outing of Plame
Decimated the Army with Abu Ghahib and Iraq Loss
Decimated the FBI with the Attorney Massacre
Decimated the EPA FDA FCC etc... etc...

He basicly has destroyed the government we know and love

[WillyT]

24. K & R !!!

:kick:

[Marr]

25. For some time now, I've been of the opinion that the Bush Admin. actually *wants* to provoke a

Constitutional crisis, so they can set a precedent of Executive authority being supreme. I believe they see it as a fight they can win. I think they'd be forcing something like this even if they weren't in legal trouble.

[mzmolly]

27. I think we need to put Dean on the payroll and have him advise in an official

capacity?

Either way, it's getting very interesting ...

:popcorn:

[paparush]

30. Can you say 'Cruise Missiles Strike Iranian Nukular Facility'

[StefanX]

31. So now Bush has fucked with the CIA (Plame), the Pentagon (Iraq) and the Courts (Attorney purge)

He's not going to make it to the end of his term -- unless he can manage to drum up another major terrorist attack on US soil again so he can have another "bullhorn" moment.

[mod mom]

32. I am worried if it goes to the Supreme Court. Stealing 3 elections allowed *

to appoint 2 SC justices and let's not forget who they owe their allegiance to:

In his questionnaire, Alito provided new details about his financial holdings, including that he owns $161,000 of Exxon Mobil Corp. stock. Altogether, Alito estimated his net worth at $2.1 million, of which $870,000 is in real estate, $789,000 in stocks and mutual funds, $244,000 in cash and $60,000 in federal Series EE bonds.

According to previous financial disclosures reported last month by the Associated Press, the Exxon Mobil stock was a bequest from a family friend.

-snip
http://judicialnetwork.com/cgi-data/in_the_news/files/136.shtml